Brown v. Bicknell

1. Statute oe limitations. A plea of the statute of Imitations is a plea to the remedy; the statute is a mere municipal regulation, formed upon local policy, and a foreign statute cannot be pleaded in our courts. 2. Exceptions to the Statute.—Where the debtor is out of the Territory at the time when the cause of action accrues, the suit may according to the 24th section of the statute of limitations, be maintained here within the time limited, after he comes into the Territory. 3. Same.—Where the maker of a promissory note resided out of the Terri. tory at the time when it became due, and afterward removed into the Territory, although the note had been due more than six years, it is not barred by the statute of limitations unless six years have elapsed since the maker came into the Territory before the commencement of the action; but to x>revent the statute from running in such case, the debtor must have been out of the Territory when the cause of action accrued.

ERROR to the District Court for Rode County. Brown brought an action of assumpsit against Bicknell, upon the following promissory notes and drafts drawn in Providence, Rhode Island, viz. : One note dated 15th February, 1833, due at six months; One dated 21st March, 1833, dne at four months; One dated 18th May, 1833, due at four months; One dated 21st May, 1833, due at sixty days; One dated 22d June, 1833, due at sixty days; A draft accepted by defendant, dated 22d April, 1833, payable sixty days after date ; A draft drawn by defendant, dated 7th June, 1833, payable on presentation. The action was commenced in 1841. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave notice that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. Prom the bill of exceptions it appears that the notes and drafts sued on, were executed at Providence, in the State of Rhode Island, and that when they became due, the defendant was out of the Territory. It also appears that the defendant came into the Territory for the first time, in July, 1837, about four years before the commencement of the suit. On the trial, the court below instructed the jury, at the request of the defendant, that the 24th section of the act in relation to the time of commencing actions was not applicable to the case, and to disregard it. Under the instructions of the court, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. A motion was made for a new trial and overruled, and judgment rendered on the verdict. argued that the statute of Wisconsin was similar to those of New York and Massachusetts upon the same subject. The decisions of the courts of those States show conclusively, that under the facts of this case, the statute of limitations is no bar to the action. 2 Rev. Stat. N. Y. 225; Rev. Stat. Mass. 700, § 9 ; Buggies «. Keeler, 3 Johns. 263; Byrne v. Crowninshield, 1 Pick. 263; Dwight v. Clark, 7 Mass. 515 ; White v. Bailey, 3 id. 217. See also Story’s Conflict of Laws, 482, 488; Bell v. Morrison, 1 Pet. 351. But for the exception in the 24th section of the act, the action would be clearly barred, and there would be no controversy in the case. The principle sought to be established by the plaintiff will go thus far; a debt may be contracted abroad and become forever barred by the limitation of a foreign State, but if the debtor comes into the Territory at any remote period, the demand may be revived against him and recovered. We contend that the 24th section was intended to apply to contracts made in the Territory, or contracts made abroad in reference to the laws of the Territory to be here executed; and that this construction should be adopted by the court. The courts in modern times view statutes of limitations much more liberally than formerly, and they often regret the constructions given by the old decisions. Bell v. Morrison, 1 Pet. 360; Buggies v. Keeler, 3 Johns. 265. Our statute is not precisely the same as those of New York and Massachusetts, and this court is not bound by the decisions in those States. The statute of limitation is a local municipal regulation, founded upon the policy of the State, and the decisions upon it violate no principle of justice, however they may be given.